Arouet, the quote tags in your reply above are messed up. Can you fix them properly using the edit button? Thanks.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

First, skeptics are not biggest supporters of religious institutions, not sure why you'd lump that in there. I wouldn't be surprised if a larger percentage of skeptics are university educated - which is where critical thinking is highlighted. But protecting the system? What system? The world is filled with systems! There is no one body controlling everything. The skeptic grouped are filled with diverse people from around the world! You folks like to group a bunch of people together who come from diverse backgrounds, and interests and ideas. Being a skeptic is a thought process.

Because the same people behind the religious institutions are the same ones behind the skeptics movement? At the bottom it appears that there is conflict, just like with the Democrats and Republicans, but at the top, it all goes back to the same source - the controllers.

There are some university professors who teach critical thinking. But most of them only teach that critical thinking is to be used at anything that challenges the establishment, thus changing the definition yet again.

Let's be clear here. The kind of skeptics we are talking about are the types like Randi, Shermer, CSICOP. We aren't talking about skeptics in terms of pure critical thinkers. Be clear on that Arouet.

The Randi's and Shermers do NOT exercise critical thinking, questioning, or doubt at all. They are DEBUNKERS of anything that challenges materialism and the status quo. That's NOT skepticism. So stop lumping in general critical thinkers with Randi, Shermer and the CSICOP crowd.

That is obfuscation of the issue.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote:Arouet, the quote tags in your reply above are messed up. Can you fix them properly using the edit button? Thanks.

Done.

I went ahead and fixed most of them for you. Next time, look at your post after you sent it to make sure that the quote tags clearly differentiate your responses from other people. Otherwise it looks very confusing.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote:Because the same people behind the religious institutions are the same ones behind the skeptics movement? At the bottom it appears that there is conflict, just like with the Democrats and Republicans, but at the top, it all goes back to the same source - the controllers.

Can you be more specific?

There are some university professors who teach critical thinking. But most of them only teach that critical thinking is to be used at anything that challenges the establishment, thus changing the definition yet again.

Again, this is the opposite of my experience. Can you provide some specific examples of this? I mean, if I had ever attempted to not look at an issue from multiple sides in any essay or exam I dd in university, I would have failed.

Let's be clear here. The kind of skeptics we are talking about are the types like Randi, Shermer, CSICOP. We aren't talking about skeptics in terms of pure critical thinkers. Be clear on that Arouet.

The Randi's and Shermers do NOT exercise critical thinking, questioning, or doubt at all. They are DEBUNKERS of anything that challenges materialism and the status quo. That's NOT skepticism. So stop lumping in general critical thinkers with Randi, Shermer and the CSICOP crowd.

That is obfuscation of the issue.

With all due respect, I've seen you make this type of claim over and over, but I haven't seen you back it up with any specific examples. I've now made several posts showing some specific examples from some of these guys, which would go against your hypothesis, but you haven't responded. (I've also made some very specific responses in the vaccine thread, would like your thoughts).

It makes it very difficult to evaluate your claims when you don't provide any specific evidence of them.

With all due respect, I am not going to play a yes but game here. As said, you win! I used this topic as a welcome post and to introduce myself and where my thought process comes from. I shall not show 'poof' of my thinking..how ludicrous. What I post is not for your evaluation . I clearly stated what my 'hypothesis' was and that

My mind is flexible, open and like a sponge for all information... I know I know nothing and need to search it out, I know my thought process will continue to evolve and change when new information comes to light

I know you but over 24 hours and from your posting style I would conclude thus far that you are here to stand rigid with the current party line and to offer a polar opposite to what this site is trying to do in combat the closed minded debunkers. 'If' I am wrong I apologise but this is my initial perception. I will not be privy to your action 'if' this is the intentions and hence 'you win'. continue your forum postings and evaluation by all means but I'm afraid my presence on this site is to further educate myself in what these good people have discovered and the ideas they provide which I independently was heading toward through similar discoveries. Now before you cry 'show me the evidence' NO. FRAID NOT

I am 100% behind Sceptical analysis and critical thinking....The Debunkers and closed minded critics I am not!! They are parasites.

With all due respect, I am not going to play a yes but game here. As said, you win! I used this topic as a welcome post and to introduce myself and where my thought process comes from. I shall not show 'poof' of my thinking..how ludicrous. What I post is not for your evaluation . I clearly stated what my 'hypothesis' was and that

My mind is flexible, open and like a sponge for all information... I know I know nothing and need to search it out, I know my thought process will continue to evolve and change when new information comes to light

I appreciate the due respect, and will return it: Why would it be ludicrous for me to ask you to back up what you claim? That is the nature of exploration of ideas and hypotheses. If you do not provide me with any evidence to back up your claim how can I possibly evaluate it? How can I have any idea whether what you say is true or not. Of course what you post if for my evaluation, mine and everyone else out here in the interwebs! This is an internet discussion forum! People post ideas, and invite replies. If you do not want such replies, then - again with all due respect - don't put your views on a public forum!

I know you but over 24 hours and from your posting style I would conclude thus far that you are here to stand rigid with the current party line and to offer a polar opposite to what this site is trying to do in combat the closed minded debunkers. 'If' I am wrong I apologise but this is my initial perception.

Interesting. I certainly do not want to appear rigid in my thinking. Can you point out which posts have suggested to you that I am?

I will tell you my approach, which is pretty open. I believe, for example, that the paranormal should be explored. I believe it should be explored scientifically. I think we should take a close look at the science out there and examine it from all angles. I even started a thread asking proponents here to put forth what they consider to be their best scientific parapsychological study so that we can discuss it. So far, no one has suggested one.

I believe that the paranormal is possible. However, I'm not quite convinced that it is probable. I do find it very interesting to discuss and evaluate the evidence. Asking for reliable evidence, IMO, is not closed minded, but is integral to the examination of any issue, whatever the topic.

I will not be privy to your action 'if' this is the intentions and hence 'you win'. continue your forum postings and evaluation by all means but I'm afraid my presence on this site is to further educate myself in what these good people have discovered and the ideas they provide which I independently was heading toward through similar discoveries. Now before you cry 'show me the evidence' NO. FRAID NOT

My intentions are to have interesting discussion. I want to put my views out there and have them challenged. I also want to examine other people's views and challenge them. This is part of the learning process. It is also a very useful skill to learn how to present an argument in a convincing and logical way, and these discussions help me foster my skills there.

If you aren't looking for such discussion, then I can accept that. But you should accept that if I see something posted that I feel requires further exploration, i won't be shy about responding to it.

I am 100% behind Sceptical analysis and critical thinking.[/quote]

I am delighted to hear that. So why would you be against presenting evidence? If you feel that I have not followed a skeptical approach in any of my posts, then I welcome constructive criticism from you as well!

Fifer, Check out this new page and article I just created for this site in the fallacies section about how pseudoskeptics hijack terms and pretend to be the opposite of what they are! You'll love it. Let me know what you think.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged